The Sun. — London, England, 1836-07-30 00:00:00

ROUSE OF LORDS, Jan- 29. , , Thrt L oan C HANCELLOR took h i s seat on toe Woolsack at tit , usual time. M -r. BELNAL and others brought up the Loans Societies Bill, with the Lords' amendments agreed to, and the Western Australia Bill. The Gaol Act (Ireland) Bill went through Committee, without amendment. The Stained Paper Bill was read a second time. The Hungerford and Lambeth Suspension Bridge Bill, and the Ottoman Consuls Bill, were read a third time and passed. 'he London Cemetery Bill was read a second time. The other Bills on . the table were advanced a stage. Earl RIPON presented a petition from Louth, Ipraying ;hat the Grammar School might be placed under the controul of the Corporation, so that the children of the town might receive the benefits of a classical education. Ile could not support the Prayer of the petition. The Marquis of WESTMEATII presented r. petition from Bandon, in favour of fly., Dublin and Drogheda Railway Bill. • Earl RIPON sail, there vas some informality in the petition from Lout:n he had presented, and he would there• fore withdraw it. Earl BROW NLO W presented a petition from a place in Lincoln ;hire, against the Oyster 'Fisheries Bill. Lord I'ITZGERALD and VESCI presented peti tion from the Grand Jury of Donegal, complainis,,g of losses whie' a they sustained by the advancemer,i of money to carry into effect the Peace Preservatir, n Bill, and prayintr that in the new Grand Jury Bill some clause should be in troduced to prevent compulsory r,ayment of alleged. arrears which may be due on dispute:.l accounts for a long period. He also presented another *petition, p ray i ng f or a clause to regulate the county treaaurersbips. The Duke BUCCLEUGH presented a petition from the syr.od Of Caithness, against the Scotch Univer sities Bill. The; Earl of DEVON presented a petition from Henry Loys'..ese; against the Brighton Railway. STAFFORD DISFRANCHISEMENT. On the O r d er o f t h e Day for the third reading of the Staffe?rd Disfranchisement Bill, The Marquis of CLANRICARDE in movirg the thixd:reading of this Bill, felt no doubt that the question ( would be entertained after the evidence adduced. and which so fully established the case ago:lost tbe b.:eough. The evidence taken at the bar of their Lordsh:ips' House fully bore out the evidence taken. in 1834, and also that taken lefore a Committee oci: the House of Commons. There could be no doubt ',,hat a clear case had ban made out against the borour:n. So far did the admitted peofligacy go, that but for the, clemency of their Lordships thl witnesses would have been severely dealt with. The brihery which existed in Pais borough from 1826 to 1835, and which had been proved against it, was so , great and manifest that it attracted the attention of all England. In 1530 the sum of 15.,.500/. had been expended for election purposes in this borr,ugh. In 1831 bribery was proved t 5 have been carried to the very utmost extent, and in the plainest and most open form. In 1830 and 1831 the p'Jrson who successfully contested the borough was an adept in the system, and his :agents were practised in it. Sr, well were they acquainted with the best plan of proceerling in such a case, t h at they knew it wa s c h eaper to bribe than to treat, and by this knowledge they carried the' election.—(Hear, hear.) It appeared from the evidence of the witnesses who were examined with respect to this election, that although the Bill whi c h was pending for the disfranchisement of the boronli had some effect, still bribery went on at its usual rate, and no less a sum than 5,500/. had been expended in this way. On that occasion 100 persons were proved to have been bribed. Indeed, the borough was known to be iucorrigible ; and in proof of it he need only state that one gentleman who had sonie claim on the constituency, having the temerity to set - ap on the principle of abstaining from treating and bribery, was able to poll but twenty votes. The nt ole amount expended in the last five elections was 36,98,0. Taking the sum at the rate 'of annual expendi ture from .826 to 1835, it amounted to 4,0001. a-year. A petition had been laid before the House, praying that the borough should be reformed, not disfranchised, and com plaining that the petitioners should be punished for the transgressions of others. They prayed for a reform of the borough, or for a transfer of the franchise to ten-pound 'householders. Of the 407 who signed this there were 45 not registered, voters, and of the remaining 362 there were proved to be 250 who had been directly bribed. These were the men who prayed not to be punished for the transgressions of others. It might be said that the new electors would prove more virtuous than the old, but the evidence showed the contrary. The poor man had some plea in his necessity, but the new constituency had no each plea. The committee in summing up this report, stated they considered them all equally bad. With respect to this Bill there might be other projects enterte:med ; but, in his opinion, under all the circumstances oithe case, an ex ample should be made of a place whicll had exhibited such gross corruption. Lord ASHBURTON waF, of opinion that this was a case to which it was necess ary to apply some remedy on the part of that House. The first consideration was, what was the state of the borough of Stafford, and the second, what was the proper '..emedy to be applied ? The first thing that appeared to I'.i m to have been proved by the evidence was that a genrJral system of treating had for a long time prevailed. Without wishing in the slightest degree to justify such a pradice, he should say that he did not think mere treating P. sufficient ground to disfranchise a borough. With respect to bribery some doubts had been entertained as to whether the inquiry should go back beyond the Reform Bill. The evidence went back to 1830, and also to 1826. * In the latter year two elections took place, and at the first, at which Mr. Benson and Mr. Ironmonger were elected, no bribery had taken place. In the second election, on the death of Mr. Ironmonger, a contest took place between two gentlemen, Mr. Spooner and Mr. Beaumont, the present Member for Northumberland, and then it was alleged that .Mr. Beaumont had bribed to a great extent, and that Mr. Spooner had also, in defence, resorted to the same practice. In 1830 Mr. Gisborne, now a Mernher of the other House, bad polled 666 votes without any payment whatever. In the subsequent election, in 1831, the candidates were--Sir John Campbell, the Attorney-General, Mr. Gisborne, and a Mr. Hawk es , I n that election there undoubtedly was bribery on the part of Sir J. Campbell and of Mr. Gisborne —in fact the latter admitted it ; but none on the part of Mr. He.wkes. On that occasion head -money had been paid, tither down at once or after the election ; but the Attorney-General, who was a little more cunning, stipu lated that he should pay down something be °lee- ton and th e rest a f terwards. In 1832, when re Mr. the Chet avynd, Mr. Gronow, and Mr. Blount were the candidates, there undoubtedly was proof that 13;:ad-money had been paid ; and perhaps the case of 1852 was one of the most gross that could be cited agair.st the borough. The last election took place in 1835, and it was stated that the practice had excited the disgust of the respectable inhabitant s of the borough, and even of the poorer classes. The only candi date who was proved to have bribed upon that occasion was Mr. Gronow, and he only paid between 170 and 180 - voters out of a constituency of 1,200. The two successful candidates were Sir F. Holyoake Goodricke and Captain Chetwynd.. He (Lord Ashburton) would call the case of 1835 one of remarkable purity, when he considered that the great majority of the voters were poor shoemakers, and to whom ten pounds pet - .ote, or some such sum, could not of cours e be unacceptable. Brib ery h a d therefbre been proved again st the Attorney-General, M r . Gisborne, Mr. Gronow, and M-,.. Blount ; and these gentlemen, it should be remembered, were all Reformers, indignant at the thought of f bribery, and mos t c l amorous, as that class thing e n , alre, or purity o f e l ect i on ; and it was a s i ngu l ar from al. 'u g h that th e only persons who had come out freed t imputation of bribery were Sir F. H. Goodricke and M.r. Farren, taro gentlemen entertning opposit e opi nior.Js. With respect to the remedy, he ai should sa y t h at i t was no trifling matte r to disfranchise a county town, con. staining a population of 10,000 inhabitants', and that it should not be done until every other remedy had failed. He was very ready to admit that something must be done in this case ; but the alternative was either to pass this Bill, sent- up from the other House of Parliament, to disfranchise the town absolutely, a s a case tcwh...u.;h it was imp oss ibl e to apply a remedy, or the.corrupt practices, it would not be possible to fix upon classes or upon individuals. He certainly should object to the dis franchisement of the freemen in a body. The LORD CHANCELLOR, upon the whole, was inclined to believe that bribery was now less practised withi n the borough than formerly. Considering, therefore, that the new constituency and the more respectable inha bitants were desirous of purifying the borough from corrupt practices he thought that the evidence was not sufficient to justify the House in disfranchising the borough en ti re l y ; hut at th e same time he was satised that some measure was necessary. The only course that he could recommend would be to stop the progress of the Bill, for the purpose of introducing another measur e , which h e s h ou ld hope y e would remed•th grievance complained of, without going beyond what justice might require. The Duke of WELLINGTON thought it would be better to agree to the second reading, in order to see what modifications might be made in the Bill. The LORD CHANCELLOR moved, as an amend ment, that the Bill be read that day three months. Viscount MELBOURNE said that it was impossible for him to vote for the second reading of this Bill, but at the same time he begged to guard himself against the im pression that he was adverse to any measure which would meet the justice of the case, and remedy the malpractices proved to have existed in the borough of Stafford. 'he House then divided, 1% nen the numbers ere— For the Bill 4 Against it 55 Majority against the 8i11..., —sl ESTABLISHED CHURCH BILL,. Viscount MELBOURNE rose for the 'wryest . of call ing their Lordships' attention to this Bill, I'vhich Was founded upon the report of the Ecclesiastfierd Whmis sioners, and the object of the Bill was Vs IkV•ry into effect the recommendations of the reports iWited in the preamble to the Bill, There were some 4111srepresentations current respecting this Bill — rnisrVesentations put forth in other places, and which had 'prevailed without the walls of Par liament-Twhich m a d e i t necessary for him to say a few words in explanatio n of the objects of the Bill—in defence of its authors —and in maintenance and support of Or principles upon which it was founded. In the fast loge he would be, g distinctly to be understood, that 04. W. 1 . not e,:eate any additional episcopal sees, did it in i...aduce into their Lordships' House any additional ecele siistical Peer. It having beer_ found, upon consideration, ty the Commissioners, P,76pedient that the sees of GI-,uees ter and Bri s t o l short;, te united into on e , and :, . of St. A sa h an the sees p d liangor should be ".:iso Inat united into one, and placed under one episcopal authority ; and the inconve nient extol-b' of the dioceses of York and Chester also havin g been kr a long time a matter of great complaint, it was re sol-ved, as the four other sees were united iota two, to di vide these sees into four, and to establ'Alt in the one those episcopal jurisdictions which 'were ; in fact, abolished in the other. But, then, no new Bishop had been appointed, there had been no increase in tht: ecclesiastical authority as re presented in that Honse, neither had any episcopal juris diction been established which had not before existed. It was, then, a general misrepresentation to state that there were two new Bishoprics created by this Bill ; and it was necessary, therefore, for him distinctly to contradict that statement, :Ind to deny that that was either the effect or the object of the measure he was then proposing. The next topic which had been made the subject of attack, of in vective, and of misrepresentation, was the amount of the incomes which, in accordance with the recommendation of the Commissioners, had been allotted to the Bishops. Now he found that this matter had been considered as if it were entirely a fresh—entirely a new—subject ; and matters be / longing to the system, which they found established, were charged against the new system which they wished to in troduce ; and it had been stated that they were giving those incomes to the Bishops, as if they had found nothing pre viously arranged. But their Lordships would recollect that on this occasion they had had to deal with an ancient And settled establishment, an establishment with which the great majority of the people were contented--to which he might say the great majority of the people were warmly attached—and which, even by those who in some degree withdrew from communion with its services, and established for themselves separate places of worship and separate ministers, was preferred to any other sect—an Establishment which, he could safely say, commanded the respect and approbation of the Dissenters themselves, and diffused its beneficial influence amongst them. It was with that state of things they had to deal ; and unless they had intended totally to alter the nature and character of that Establishment, which he for one must beg to say he was by no means prepared to recommend or to support—unless they were prepared to make so extensive an alteration, they had nothing to do but to retrench superfluities, and correct that which appeared to them subject to the charge of excess. He had seen that the Right Reverend Prelates who had acted upon the Commission were charged with avarice, for concurring in the recommendation of those Commissioners. Now, nothing could be so unfounded as that ; because, as the regulations were not to affect the present incomes, no Prelate who was in possession of a diocese could be accused of any personal or selfish mo tives. He might, perhaps, be accused of entertaining too great an attachment to his order—of being prejudiced in his views upon the subject —of being anxious to pre serve to others those benefits which he had himself en joyed ; but, then, though those were charges of a lighter nature, and contained nothing of a sordid or dishonour able character. He (Lord Melbourne) would not then go through what had so often been detailed before, as to the present amount of the incomes of the bishops, or that which was proposed by the present measure. But now let them, for instance, consider why the sum of 15,0001. a year should be allotted to the Archbishop of Canterbury ; and when they considered the state of society in this country, considering the position which the Archbishop of Canter bury was accustomed to fill, and the influence which ge neral opinion must have upon the position which he would hereafter fill —considering also the established mode and fashion, from which it would be so difficult to depart—he would ask their Lordships whether, in reference to the wealth of the country, in reference to the distribution of that wealth, in reference to the large fortunes which had fre quently been amassed, and would continue to be so, whether the sum of 15,000/. a year was anything extravagant or excessive ? Theii Lordships knew what 15,0004 a year was ; he would not say that, if carefully watched and guarded, it would not be sufficient for the purposes proposed —sufficient to maintain its possessor with the proper com fort and style due to his station, and sufficient even for the exercise of a becoming charity. But it would not admit of any superfluities : it would not admit of princely splen dour or extravagant luxury ; it would not admit of any thing like waste, profusion, or negligence. Then he begged to put it to th e i r L or d s hi ps and the country wheter, unless they consented to an entire change in the character of the Established Church, a change which he was not pre pared to support—whether, with any justice, it could be complained that that which was recommended by the Com missioners was in any way exorbitant ? And if the charge was not true as to the higher incomes, his observations would have double force with respect to the inferior sums. But when they were told that these incomes were about three times as much as the salaries of any of his Majesty's principal Secretaries of State, or of the superior Judges of the Court of Law, he must beg to say that those compa risons were in no degree fair.--(Hear.) There had hitherto been found, and he believed always would be found, per sons not only of competence, but of very ponsiderable for tune, who would be tempted, by views of ambition, to un dertake the principal offices of State ; but that was not the case with the Church. Fortunes might descend to per sons who were established in the Ecclesiastical profession ; but it was seldom, he believed, that any man originally of considerable fortune entered the Church as a profession ; and, consequently, the Bishop came to his see probably a poor man, very improbably a rich one, and then he gained that station with the disadvantages of an income which terminated with his own life ; and their Lordships must all be aware how great were the em barrassments to which an individual so circumstanced was subject. Then, again, as to the higher sta tions in the law, they were generally bestowed upon Bar risters of extensive practice who had had the opportunity during that practice of making fortunes before they reached those stations. Taking all things into considera tion, be believed their Lordships would be disposed to concur in the recommendation of the Commissioners upon that part of the subject. There were two other points, which had also , been made the subject of attack and in vective ; and those points were the constitution of the Commission and its powers. Now upon the first point be could conceive nothing more reasonable than that they should appoint those persons who had been investigating the subject during the whole time of the inquiry, who were thoroughly acquainted with the details of the mat ter, who had sanctioned by their reports those views which were proposed to be acted upon, and who might ' therefore be considered as really desirous to carry them into effect. The Archbishops of Canterbury and York and the Bishop of London were appointed the only permanent members of the Commission ; there were be sides two other Bishops —the Bishop of Lincoln and the Bishop of Gloucester ; several of the Ministers for the time being ; a Noble Earl (Harrowby) whom he saw opposite ; and two others who were laymen, and those were made removable. Then, as to the powers of that commission, they were to carry into effect the re commendations contained in the reports of the commis sioners ; they were to lee regulated strictly by those recom mendations, from which they were not to depart except in matters of detail and regulation ; and their duty was to prepare schemes for carryin g into effect those recommenda tions, to lay th ose schemes before his Majesty in Council ; and when any such schemes should be approved of by the King in Council it was enacted that it should be lawful for his Majesty to issue orders ratifying those schemes, which orders were to be registered in the diocese, and published in the Gazette. Then he (Viscount Melbourne) felt perfectly convinced that nothing could be less extensive, nothing could be subject to more controul, than the power with which those commissioners were entrusted, and the person who was most jealous of authority could have no reason to apprehend anything from the extent of power and authority which, by this Bill, was conferred. He had now opened to their Lordships the principal provisions of the Bill. All the recommendations were detailed in the preamble ; and he should then move the second reading of this Bill, which was to carry those recommendations into effect. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE did entertain some objection to this Bill. He, for one, had felt the objection which had been raised elsewhere with regard to the amount of incomes to have considerable weight. It was not his intention to oppose the second reading of the Bill, because he did not regard it as a final settlement. Tl:e feeling of the public had been excited strongly upon this subject, but he felt that they could not make great changes very rapidly ; and he admitted that by the present Bill they had made a considerable change. But he must say that more hereafter remained to be done ; and though the Noble Viscount had alluded to the income of the future Archbishop of Canter bury, he Lad not stated any reason for allotting to the future Bish)p cl London 10,000/. ; and when they were told about such incomes leaving no room for waste, or luxury, or extravagante, they. were bound to chink ,at saint time the indigen'ee of othes:t ; t1 4io tti'tifCtsiOn, who performed latoribtlis dknf-atheY Wei:e bound to take into eoriticterati%) the Miserable state of the working Ctergy, for it was a notorious fact that the immense dispro portion in the incomes of the different classes of the Clergy had excited throughout the people of the country a strong feeling of disapprobation and dissatisfaction, rd - i. his o wn part he (the Marquis of Clanricarde) eooid not approve of ma T n: e pa ß rt is s h o o f p tl o ii rs jv h; s s lt; 4 tiltl oftef lid opposition to it in that stage, he .IrOtild not trouble their 11 " dsh in' iensqh, Atm least of all s o as t o d eter them r„. 71 to the second reading of this Bill cth ileHTcr unanimity. But he was anxious to mention I.Vvo or three considerations which pressed upon his mind. Of the object of the Bill he entirely approved—it was to put an end to the practice of commendams, and to dis charge as far as possible the practice of translation. Now, he was of opinion, that nothing could be better devised than the simple mode of making a distribution of the revenues, and providing that nothing should be taken from any other rank of the Clergy than the episcopal. Now, having freely assented to the general policy of the measure, he must make a few remarks upon one or two points which had suggested themselves to him ; and, first, he could not but think that a larger machinery had been set on foot than was at all necessary for the purposes of this Bill. All that was necessary was, that a Commission should be appointed by Parliament to carry the recommen dations into effect. That was the object of the Bill ; but was that all that was done ? By this Bill there was af forded, besides, an incitement to perpetual change, and there was the machinery also for keeping up that perpetual change. After once the assignment of the revenues had been made, nothing more could be required ; but here it was enacted that after every seven years there should be a revision of the incomes of the Bishops. Now, he did tl lise . • that the only effect of such an enactment would be, as , a , intimated by the Noble Marquis (Clanricarde) to produ.. f perpetual change. Again, he (the Bishop of Exeter) could see no reason why this commission should be a corpo ration, when his Majesty might have been empowered to continue the commission as long as might be necessary for carrying into effect the recommendations recited in the preamble, and a single generation would be sufficient for that. He objected also strongly, very strongly, to the mode in which the commission was to be formed. There were to be only three permanent members ; and he would venture to appeal to their Lordships whether there was a single instance of a corporation of which the vast majority of the members were removable at the pleasure of the Crown. He knew there were instances of persons being removable on the pleasure of the Crown who were members of corpora tions, but he confidently believed that there was not a single instance of a corporation in which the majority of members were so removable. A great portion of this commission was to consist of the peculiarly political part of his Majesty's Go vernment ; and he begged to assure the Noble Viscount, that his observations were intended to refer only to Govern ments generally. But the effect of such a provision was evident, that the Commission must shift with the political tide of every day, and that if there was any temptation to use it for political purposes, the Government of the day would have the power to do so. In the Commission for Inquiry into Irish Ecclesiastical Revenues there had been but one member who was removable at the pleasure of the Crown ; and the persons appointed were those who were the least likely to pervert their power to political purposes. The departure of the Noble Lords who framed the Bill from the precedent was a subject of serious consideration ; and instead of the adoption of that precedent, the appoint ment of the Commission in such a manner as to make the body wholly dependent on the will and pleasure, or caprice, of Government, was a matter which naturally gave rise to considerable doubts and suspicions. He was, however, willing to hope that nothing more was intended than was expressed in the preamble, and be trusted that the Noble Lords would establish the sincerity of their intentions by agreeing in Committee to some modifications of that part of the mea sure. He entertained another objection to the scheme which was proposed, because he could not but consider that it would absolutely destroy the independence of the Church, and render its Ministers mere stipendiary servants. If it were carried into effect, no longer would the Bishops have control over the property of their sees ; they would no longer be in the position of proprietors of the land. There were powers conferred by this Bill upon the Commissioners which he was sure could not have been contemplated by the Rev. Prelates who sat upon the Commission, or by the Noble Lord who had introduced this Bill in so handsome a manner towards the Clergy. He hoped in Committee there would be no difficulty as to imposing some check upon these powers, which no one could wish to maintain. He heartily concurred in the principle of the Bill ; and he also thanked his Majesty's Government, and particularly the Noble Viscount as its head, for the manner in which he had brought the subject forward, and for the attach-1 ment which he had expressed to the Established Church ; and he trusted that that Church would continue to merit the attachment of every Government, by contributing, through God's grace, to the maintenance of true religion, sound morality, and real loyalty. The Bishop of LINCOLN said a few words, which were inaudible in the Gallery. The Bishop of HEREFORD said that he was unwil ling to give a silent vote on the present occasion, though, indeed, it appeared that there was such an unanimous opinion in favour of the second reading of the Bill that no vote would be then required upon the question ; but he felt it to be his duty to state in some degree his apprehen sion as to the nature of this Bill. He could not say that he looked without very considerable apprehension at the great changes which would be effected by this Bill, and by which he felt the independence of the Church would be destroyed. The Right Rev. Commissioner who had last spoken had said that it was the furthest thing from the idea of the Commissioners to render the Ministers of the Church merely stipendiary ; but, for his own part, he must confess that he looked upon that as the necessary consequence of the provisions contained in the measure. As for men who were allowed to hold property, and to administer that property themselves, but were, at the same time, not permitted to enjoy beyond a certain proportion—wh o were to be amenable to a tribunal appointed to inquire into the amount of their pro perty, and which could say—" Beyond this you must not go—deliver the rest to me"—he could not but think that those men were little better than stipendiaries. It came to this, that the Bishop was to administer certain estates, out of which he was to take the sums of 15,000/., 10,0001., or 8,0001. Now, he would only ask was that the intention of the Commissioners ? He did not mean to offer any op position to the second reading, but he was called upon by a conscientious feeling to protest against those provisions of which he had complained. He sincerely felt that it was striking a blow at the Church ; it might be the first blow, but it was striking a blow at the Church from which she could never recover. ' The Archbishop of CANTERBURY thought that the Right Rev. Prelates could not have complained if they had looked more accurately into the Bill, because they would have found that certain payments were charged upon the larger sees, so as to leave an average of so much a year ; but the whole management of the property was left in the hands of the Bishops. For instance, supposing the property of the see of Canterbury to be 18,0001., it would be charged with a tax of 3,0001. a year, in order to reduce the income to an average of 15,0001. a year. But what his successor would have to do would be merely to pay yearly the sum of 3,0001. out of his income, leaving to himself the sum of 15,0001. At the end of seven years, there was to be a re vision, in order to determine whether he had received more or less than 15,0001. a year ; and though that had been complained of, he was sure that such a revision was necessary, because there might in some cases be a great diminution in the property of the see, which would other wise be the source of severe hardship to the Bishop. He agreed with his Right Rev. Friend as to the propriety of the provision that nothinc , should be t a k en away f rom those preferment s w hi c h would' be diminished in number, if the recommendations of the Commissioners should be carried into effect. He was very much gratified at the unanimity which prevailed with respect to the general principle of the measure. The gross misrepresentations which had been made in other places, had been ably refuted by the Noble Viscount ; and the other objections which had been taken to this Bill, had very properly been reserved for discussion and consideration in Committee. It was most gratifying to him, as it must be also to the other Commissioners, that the Bill should have met with that general approbation from their Lordships, which he had no doubt it would re ceive from the country at large. After a few words from the Bishop of ROCHESTER, the Bill was read a second time. SCOTCH UNIVERSITIES BILL. The Report upon this Bill was brought up and received, with an amendment proposed by the Duke of Buccleuch, to the effect that any alteration in the curriculum of study should be reported to the Moderator of the General As sembly of the Church of Scotland. Their Lordships then adjourned. HO USE OF COMMONS, JULY 29. The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour. TRINITY (NORTH LEITH) HARBOUR. Sir ANDREW L. HAY brought in the Trinity (North (Leith) Harbour Bill, which was read a first time. The Hon. Baronet stated that he had given notice he should move the Standing Orders be suspended with regard to this Bill, but perhaps it would be better for him to move that the Bill be read a second time next Monday, his ob ject being to get the Bill through the House this Session. The LORD ADVOCATE said that no doubt his Hon. Friend had shown great zeal with regard to this Bill. The promoters of this Bill had no other claim upon the indul gence of the House but that of their blunders. The ques- 30, 1836. tioti was whether all the rules df the House were t o b e se t aside on ttiht occasion;Oiher respects had not ficLi Mai; 14 1 3 hiid ti b i ns PI 11;, hand against th e f ormer Bill ; b ut as they wou ld no t be addwed to be presented against the present Bill, he trusted the House would see the necessity of not suspending the Stand ing Orders ; so that parties rtiglit dti Oriporttinity of pe titiddlng- the Ho* heals dby Counsel agaitist the Bill. Sir G. CLERKsaid the 4tiestion belbre the House was of a iidcti iiidre setiotis character thari the rtierits of a pri vate Bill. He confessed that he had been taken by sur prise by the aturld plirstied by the Hon. Nictribet yester day ; and if ever it was necessary for the House to insist strictly upon the enforcement of the Standing Orders, as regarded the time between the different stages of a private Bill, it was at the present time. The only apology that had been offered for the blunders that had been com mitted in the former Bills was, that they bad been hurried through their_ different stages, and now the Hon. Baronet came forward with a proposition to sus pend the Standing Orders, for the purpose of hurrying the Bill through its various stages. He contended that the House had no right to grant such an extraordinary indul gence ; and as the Right Hon. Gentleman in the Chair was connected with that part of the country-, he thought it would be most desirable that the House should have the benefit of his opinion and advice upon the question. He should object to any further indulgence being given ; indeed he hoped that after a full consideration of the case, the House would stop all further proceedings on the Bill till next Session. Sir G. STRICKLAND was one of the Members of the Standing Orders Committee, and was placed in a very awkward situation, for he was much disposed to support the Bill upon its merits ; but when a new Bill was brought in at this late period of the Session, when it could not be passed without a suspension of the Standing Orders of the House, he could not give it his support, while the next Session he would be called upon to defer bills of as much importance for more trifling mistakes. He must oppose the motion. Mr. WILKS quite agreed with the Hon. Member if he understood his reasoning. He agreed with the Hon. Baronet, that if such was the case, it would be intolerable. But what were really the facts upon which this subject pro ceeded? The truth was, that upon no error on the part of the promoters of the Bill —errors which did not affect the substantial merits of the Bill—objections were made to it. The measure was abandoned. The Bill came a second time before the House, and in spite of all the influence that had been exercised against the Bill, it was read a second time, and the question now was, whether on account of a small verbal inaccuracy the merits of the Bill were not to be considered, and it was not to be allowed to be read a second time. Under such circum stances, he hoped th e H on . an d G a ll ant Mem b er (Sir A. L. Hay) would persevere in the proposition he had made, and that the House would support it, and make it an Order of the Day that this Bill be read a second time on Monday next. Sir J. GRAHAM thought that the Hon. and Gallant Member required no encouragement.—(Hear, hear.) His perseverance was as signal as his boldness ; but the House seemed determined to support the view he had taken in carrying this Bill. This Bill seemed to him (Sir James Graham) to be a signal triumph over the Standing Orders of the House.—( Hear, hear.) Those Standing Orders, though technical in character, were of the utmost importance to the defence of property ; and it was not on the ground of their technical nicety that they ought to be adhered to, but as preliminary forms, whereby the interests of parties and of private property were pro tected. This question was not solely as regarded Trinity Harbour—that was of secondary importance ; but the Standing Orders by which private property was defended were at stake. After the debate of yesterday, when the rules and orders of their proceedings were overthrown by a bare majority, he (Sir J. Graham) on public grounds called upon the Speaker to state what, in his (the Speaker's) opinion was the course that ought to be taken, and whether this Bill was consistent with the order of the proceedings. Sir A. L. HAY was also anxious to hear the opinion of the Speaker upon the question. The SPEAKER, who spoke in so low a tone of voice as to be scarcely audible, was understood to say, the diffi culty the House had to consider had arisen from the act of the party who made the application, and that it was of very great importance to the House that those gentlemen who practised before the House should use all diligence and care in the conduct of Bills. The House had a very slender bold over those who practised before the House, as had been proved by the Report of a late Committee. He therefore thought the House would be exceedin g ly care f u l in giving i n d u l gence to those parties who applied for it, when it was recollected that they had not from first to last used that due diligence which parties were bound for the sake of themselves and the public to. use. Applying that principle to this particular case, he would not express any opinion as to what was the cause of the original difficulty. Here was a case in which the Report of the Committee had interfered after the indulgence had been granted, stating that the parties had not attended to the skilful and proper performance of their duty. Under these cir cumstances, he thought the parties were not entitled to the indulgence they now claimed.—(Hear.) Sir A. L. HAY, after the very clear explanation they had just heard from the Speaker, would have no hesitation in withdrawing the Bill. The Bill was then by leave withdrawn. Mr. WALLACE presented a petition from Dissenters in Edinburgh, praying that the materials employed in building their houses of worship would not be taxed. A drawback was allowed upon glass, slate, timber, and stones, employed not only in building, but in repairing the places of worship of the Established Church, and even the school houses, and the petitioners prayed that that indul gence might be extended to them. kle begged to give notice that next session he should move for leave to bring in a Bill to extend generally to all sects the right to receive a draw back upon all materials employed in the erection of places of public worship. The Hon. Member then presented two petitions in favour of the Bill for sending newspapers through the penny post, which would be a great relief to the country. He had also a petition from an individual named Geary, in Ireland, complainitr , that he sent a l e tt er containing 301. i n t o a country post-office, directed to his ' correspondent in Dublin, and paid the postage. He traced the letter to Dublin ; but it had never been received by his correspondent there ; and the Secretary of the Post-office there told him that he could give him no redress, and thus the poor man had lost his sot. The petitioner prayed that the system of regis tration would be again adopted in the Irish Post-office. The Hon. Member also presented a petition from Inverness, complaining of the delay of their correspondence in Lon don, for from twelve to fourteen hours daily, and forty-eight hours once a week. They thought they were entitled to relief, and so did he ; and he trusted that the system of a double post would soon be established, when he felt certain the prognostications of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the increased expense, would be found to be false. It was done now in Ireland by first class coaches, and might, and he hoped soon would be done in England, at a very small ex pense. It was a subject well worthy of mature consideration. Mr. WILKS said it might save time if he said, with re gard to the first petition presented by the Hon. Member, that it was his intention to introduce a measure upon the subject, to extend it to Great Britain, early next Session. Sir G. STRICKLAND presented a petition from the Philosophical Society of Yorkshire, praying for a duplicate copy of all prints and objects of natural curiosity which had been collected in the British Museum. Also one from the workers of a factory in Hedmondswick, praying for a 10 hours' Bill. Mr. GROTE presented a petition from a Dissenting Congregation in Aldersgate, praying for the abolition of Church-rates. Also one from a Solicitor of London, named Thomas Locke, complaining of the time and expense in curred to plaintiffs by fraudulent debtors denying their handwriting to bills of exchange, and praying that one of the Judges might sit once a month in London and West minster during the long vacation, for much delay took place in obtaining justice for some months. Sir R. INGLIS presented petitions from Aberdeen, Carlow, and other places, against the Scotch University Bill. Also, a petition against the Marriage and Registra tation Act, from West Kent. Mr. F. BUXTON, seeing the President of the Board of Control in his place, wished to know what steps had been taken in respect of that important provision in the East India Company's Bill relative to slavery in India ? Sir J. HOBHOUSE said that the whole question of slavery had been left to the local bodies. The local authorities would take the matter into consideration, and would submit to the home authorities certain re gulations for the manumission of slaves. Until such a plan was sent home they could not take the subject into consideration. The House was aware that the local authorities had taken means to prevent the introduc tion or the exportation of slaves, and they had entered into several treaties for that purpose ; but he was sorry to say that at Goa, and other Portuguese settlements, the slave trade was still carried on to an extent which he re gretted very much. He would take an opportunity of drawing the attention of the Court of Directors to the fact, that no law, or regulation, or plan had been yet sent home, but when a plan was sent home it would be laid be fore the House. Mr. F. BUXTON hoped that he misunderstood the Right Hon. Gentleman, when he said that the Govern ment, either here or in India, did not feel themselves pledged to abolish slavery. It was understood in the House that means would be taken to abolish slavery in India, and if that were an erroneous impression, the effect would be to raise a very strong feeling throughout this country. Sir J. C. HOBHOUSE would read the clause of the Act by which the charter was granted. The effect was, r ?let the Iral authorities be required to take into consi deration tag fiyiprks pf mitigating the state of the slaves, and of extinguishiriri 41a+ert throoghout the whole of the Indian territdrie4j . gO sodn as st.l6li atifigtir should be safe and pra!'... l . l .edhU, , aria that fio'rii tithe fc . billet they should prepard and transmit to ediirt of Directors the litiu or regulations for this purpose i mutiti tqAa'arifigsticli plans, due iegafd should be had to the hives of riiain* and to the rights and authority at fathers and heads of faa?lllitm He would, as he stated before, dra* the attention of the Court of Directors to the f....ct that no phut Nitta been as yet teht, SPANISH CLAII4B: The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEWER, in an swer to a question from Sir John Beckett, said the case of -the Spanish claims was befbre the Law Officers of the Crown for their opinion, to ascertain whether they came within the same principles as those of the Danish claims, and that if they did, they would be adjudicated upon in the same manner. CASE OF MR. DEVITT-DUBLIN POST. OFFICE. Mr. WILKS said that, having put into the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer a list of the papers he wished to have relative to the case of Mr. Devitt, he wished to know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer had now any objection to produce them ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that unquestionably he could not assent to the pro duction of the papers as a matter of course. He should be prepared to state to the House, when the Hon. Member for Boston brought forward the motion, the ground of his resisting the production which he had stated to the Hon. Member himself. It would then be for the House to say, after they had heard those statements, whe ther there was any case made out for the production. They were very voluminous, and he could not consent to the production, unless the House thought there was a case made out for it. Mr. WILKS would give notice for a certain day on which he would move for the production. COUNTY ELECTIONS POLLS BILL. Lord JOHN RUSSELL moved the third reading of the County Elections Polls Bill. Mr. A. TREVOR said it was utterly impossible, under the provisions of this Bill, that the freeholders could pro perly exercise their franchise. In the case of an individual having a vote in two contiguous counties, it would not be in his power to attend at the polling places in both counties. It surely never was intended that persons possessing pro perty in two contiguous counties should not have the power of exercising his franchise in both. It was stated that the great object of the Reform Bill was to extend the franchise as much as possible. It would appear that such was not the object of the pre sent Bill, and perhaps as it had been said that the elections in counties were not so favourable to his Majesty's present Government as in cities, the Bill now before the House was intended to remedy that inconvenience. Putting all this aside, he contended that there were elections in many cases which had been unfairly carried on—in fact, car ried on by clamour. It had been remarked that elections had been virtually decided the first day.—(A laugh.) Now, the Noble Lord the Member for Lincoln had. shewn clearly that, if only one day had been given for elections, the "House would not have been favoured with the eloquence of the Hon. Member for Middlesex.—(Cheers.) He should feel it his duty, under all these circumstances, to divide the House upon the third reading. Mr. GROVE PRICE felt satisfied that the effect of the alteration in the Bill would be to give to unprincipled men the opportunity of creating tumult and confusion. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER de fended the principle of the Bill. Colonel SIBTHORP objected to the principle of the Bill, feeling convinced that it was destructive to the rights of property. Mr. WILKS said, if this Bill had not been introduced at all, he doubted whether the Hon. and Gallant Member' could have exercised his franchise in all the places which he had named. He knew one Right Hon. Gentleman who had a vote for not less than twenty-six different places, and it was of course impossible that he could exercise his fran chise at any general election in all these places. Mr. SHIRLEY would oppose the Bill. He believed the result of the city elections would have been similar to the county ones, if the brick-bat and bludgeon system had not been adopted. If the Hon. Members opposite would give the counties but half a_ day in addition, he had no doubt of the result. Even in the cities and towns the people of England were, he was glad to say, beginning to smell the cloven foot.--(Opposition cheers.) Mr. M. PHILLIPS said the Hon. Member opposite might have reason to congratulate hims e lf u p on th e resu l t of one l uc ky e l ect i on ; and he would assure the Hon. Mem ber that the charge of brick-bats and bludgeons did not lie at the door of any Hon. Member on that (the Minis terial) side of the House.--(Cheers.) He could give the House some rather extraordinary facts connected with brick bats and bludgeons, in which a Reverend Gentleman was concerned.—(Ministerial cheers, followed by cries of " Name, name.") He w ou ld no t name t h e i nd i vidual, but Hon. Members on the other side would be able to identify the person, if he mentioned that he was the curate of a parish in South Warwickshire.—(Loud cheering.) He should give his cordial support to the Bill, as he did not anticipate any of the inconvenience alluded to by Honourable Members on the other side.—(Hear, hear.) Sir E. WILMOT was in Warwickshire during the elec tion, and heard the whole of the circumstances ; and he would take upon himself to say, that upon the evidence he had heard, and from what he had been told on the subject, there was not a single word of truth in the whole of it.— (Loud Cheers.) Mr. M. PHILLIPPS could only assurejthe Hon. Ba ronet and the House, that having spent four or five days in the county, both prior and subsequent to the elec tion ; thai during his residence there, he never heard from a single single individual anything like the contradiction he had just heard.--(Cheers from the Ministerial side of the House.) If the Hon. Bart. was able to satisfy himself that this was the case, no man in that House was more sincerely desirous of knowing that the matter was set at rest than he would be. The statement which he had made had been made in print, and was not con tradicted during the election, and he therefore thought the statement correct. If he hAd been led into error he would be glad to hear a refutation. If he had stated what was in correct he had not done so on his own authority—it had been stated throughout the whole county, and no one could rejoice more to hear a contradiction, because he felt that it was an act that was derogatory to the character of any in dividual, and still more a gentleman of the clerical charac ter.—(Hear hear.) Sir E. WILMOT had no personal knowledge of the facts, but what he had heard from both sides.'He had heard the charge and the refutation, and the conclusion he had come to was, that the charge was unfounded.—(Hear, hear.) He did so on this ground, that if it were true it would be brought before the proper tribunal, and the party, if guilty, ought to be punished. Mr. A. TREVOR, from his own personal knowledge, could give the fact the most decided contradiction—from his own personal knowledge.—(A laugh.) Mr. PALMER thought that this Bill would deprive a great number of electors of their franchise, if they con fined the election to one day, and the expense would be quite as much if not more to the county Members. Colonel GORE LANGTON and Mr. PALMER of Berk shire would vote against the third reading. Mr. HUME had no doubt whatever that the saving of one day would be the saving of a great deal of expense, and would prevent the various means usually resorted to of getting votes, being carried into effeet on the second day. Sir J. GRAHAM said that increased means of con veyance would be requisite, and consequently there would be increased expense. The multiplication of polling places would involve a necessity f or an i ncreased number of clerks and electioneering agents, and bringing the voters from a distance would altogether cause a most exorbitant increase of expense. A more serious objection was, that the selec tion of the polling places was placed virtually in the bands of the Administration, and, without doubting the discretion with which that p ower wou l d b e exercised, he thought it most dangerous to entrust it to any Administration. He never entertained a more complete conviction of the im• propriety of a Bill than he did of this ; and he should most cordially vote against it, considering it an interference with the elective franchise. After some further conversation, in which Mr. Wilbra ham, Mr. Aglionby, Mr. Praed, Mr. D. W. Harvey, and Mr. Goulburn joined, the House divided, when there ap peared— For the third reading ....... 93 Against it Majority for the third reading The Bill was accordingly read a third time. On the question that the Bill pass. Mr. FORESTER moved a clause, by way of rider, to the effect that in the elections of knights to serve for any counties, ridings, parts or divisions of counties, which may be contiguous, the polls shall not take place on the same day, and that therefore it shall be lawful at any general election for the Lord High Chancellor, or Lord Keeper of the Great Seal for the time being, to ascertain and define the several days on which elections in contiguous counties, ridings, parts or di v i s i ons o f counties, may be conveniently held, and at the time of making out the writs to direct letters to be sent to the Sheriffs or returning officers for the re spective counties, ridings, parts or divisions of counties, re quiring them to fix the days of polling as he shall appoint, in order that no poll be taken for any riding, county, part or division of a county, on the same day with any contiguous county, riding, part or division of a county ; the said sheriffs, or returning officers, are hereby required to fix the days of polling accordingly, any law or statute to the contrary not with . stancling,r. Lord J. RUSSELL objected to the clause. After a few words from Mr. HUME and Mr. WAI I. BURTON, Sir J. GRAHAM suggested to the Hon. Member 1° witildraw the clause, and it was withdrawn accordingly. Lord LOWTHER then proposed an additional clause , to the effect, as well as we could gather from the low tone in which the Noble Lord spoke, that distinct polling p h i „,iq should be provided for every four hundred and 01 v etR rs. . The clause was . "creed to. The Bill then passen. COURT OF SESSIt'N (SCOTLAND). On the motion of the LORD ADVOCATE the Court of Session (Scotland) Bill was read a third time. On the question that it pass being put from the Chair, Sir G. CLARK moved the omission of the ]sth clause' The LORD ADVOCATE opposed the motion. After a few words from Mr. AGLIONBY and Mr. r• BARING, Sir G. CLERK withdrew his motion, and would, instead of it, propose to insert a proviso in the 17th clause, giving a pr6fer ence i n th e new appo i ntments to b e made under this Bill to those persons who were discharged from those offices under the present Act. The motion was agreed to, and the Bill was passed. CHARITABLE TRUSTS BILL. Mr. V. SMITH moved the Order of the Day for the the third reading of the Charitable Trusts Bill. Colonel SIBTHORP moved, as an amendment, that till Bill be read a third time that day six months. • Mr. TREVOR seconded the amendment. Mr. HARDY protested against the Bill as injurious to the Established Church. After a few words from Mr. Leader, and Mr. Scarleap Sir R. INGLIS expressed his disapprobation to the measure, as it was calculated to be of decided injurY t ° the Church. Colonel SIBTHORP replied. The House then divided—. For the original motion 54 For the amendment Majority for the third reading The Bill was then read a third time, and passed. • STANNARIES COURTS. The Order of the Day for the further consideration the Report of the Stannaries Courts Bill was then read. Sir J. Y. BULLER h a d severa l o bj ections to the Bill, which, if not removed in Committee, would oblige him to vote against it. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL explained the objects of the Bill for the remedy of the deficiencies of laws that bore on mining affairs in Cornwall ; and stated that one or its main features was the conferring on the Vice-Wardel authority to preside with efficiency in both the Equity and Common Law Courts. The necessary expenses were but small, and were all provided for by the Bill in the most satisfactory manner. The House then went into Committee on the Bill. Clause 44, which transfers to the new Stannaries Court the rights and jurisdictions of the old Court, being put, Mr. PRAED opposed the clause, hod moved that it be expunged from the Bill. The House divided— For the clause Against it 79 29 Majority The clause was agreed to. Some new clauses were added to the Bill. The preamble was then agreed to, and the House re sumed. REGISTRATION OF VOTERS BILL. ' Lord J. RUSSELL said that he had intended to move the further consideration of the Report on this Bill to' night, in order to introduce some amendments, which be was about to propose to the House ; but not being so en: tirely prepared to do so as he could have wished, he though,: it better at once to postpone the further proceeding wit " the Bill until Monday. At the same time, however, be wished to state the conclusion to which be had come on it proposition which had been !made from the other side of the House on the subject of the appointment of Revir ing Barristers. The mode proposed by the Bill—that of vesting the appointment of these officers in the Crown —had been much objected to ; and it had been stir Bested to him (Lord John Russell) to propose some other method. With that view he had considered the question , and it seemed to him that it might be possible to concede to the proposition which had been made, by naming one chief and a certain number of other Revising Barristers in the present Bill, and vesting the appointment• of theta hereafter in the Lord Chancellor. The number 'of Revising Barristers at first proposed had been eight, btit he now pro. ; pose that there should be eleven, including the chief, inas much as it had been considered that eight would not be sufficient to the performance of the duties, and that the public business might be therefore impeded, to the Serious, loss of bodi es o f const i tuents. With respect to the Ch_d_'el Revising Barrister, he would propose the Right Hon. 001 ) :, Thomas Erskine, the Secretary to the Court of Review' for that office ; and, notwithstanding the great difficult , ' there was in finding individuals sufficiently qualified wh o would be rea d y t o l eave their professional practice an d prospects for the situation, he did hope that on Monday he would be enabled to propose the individuals to fill the other ten situations. The House would, however, be ab le w to conside r w h et h er t h e general proposition he no null would be ca l cu l ate d to remove the objections which ha d been raised to the plan proposed by the Bill. Lord G. SOMERSET, having before expressed a strong opinion against the appointment of the revising barrister bf the Secretary of State, felt bound now to express his con currence in the mode of appointment proposed by the Noble Lord. Mr. A. TREVOR hoped that if there was any doubt as to the Bill coming on on Monday, the Noble Lord would name some other day, in order to accord with the conve nience of Members. Lord J. RUSSELL, although one or two Bills w ould stand before this on Monday, yet hoped that the Bill would come on at an early hour on that day. Mr. W. PR AED, although he might not entirely agree in the nomination of the Noble Lord, yet, as the point had been conceded, did not wish to offer any unnecessary oppa' sition. He hoped that the appointments to the ten revising" barristerships would be as satisfactory as that which had been mentioned for the chief. Colonel SIBTHORP begged to call the attention of the Noble Lord and of the House to the great inconvenience Hon. Members suffered from the uncertainty there was as to the business of the House coming on according to the notices. The Hon. and Gallant Member was about to give a notice on the subject for Tuesday, when he was called to order by The SPEAKER, who said that it was not competent to the Hon. and Gallant Member to give a notice while a question was before the House. Colonel SIBTHORP hoped the Noble Lord would afford the House some means of knowing how he meant to bring on the business. Mr. A. TREVOR inquired whether the consideration of the Lords' amendments to the English Tithe Bill wo uld be taken on Monday ? Lord J. RUSSELL said that if the Bill was printed by that time, as he supposed it would be, it would be brought on on Monday. • Mr. A. TREVOR —Then, as it is clear what will be the fate of the Registration Bill, had not the Noble Lord better name some other day for going on with that measure 2 Lord J. RUSSELL said that it would be very easy to do so at an earlier period of the session, but he apprehended that Honourable Members would not like to have the session unnecessarily prolonged by the further postponement of the measure in question on the grounds stated by the lion. Member. The Secular Jurisdiction (York and Ely) Abolition Bill was, on the motion of the Solicitor-General, read a third f;.„„ On the question that the Bill do pass, Mr. TO WNLEY proposed the addition of a clause, the object of which was not heard in the gallery, owing to the low tone of voice in which the Hon. Gentleman spoke. The motion however was, after a brief conversation, ne gatived without a division, and the Bill passed. POST OFFICE COMMISSIONERS BILL. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER m oved that the House do resolve itself into committee on the Pot Office Commissioners Bill. Colonel SIB THORP considered the measure as amount". ing to the worst species of bribery and corruption. Even though he stood alone, he should oppose the Speaker lean' ing the chair. Mr. A. TREVOR seconded the motion. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER hoped the Hon. Gentlemen opposite would not persevere in the course which they had taken. Mr. GOULBURN thought that before they consented to go into Committee on a measure which went to change the administration of the affairs of the Post Office, the House should know something about the principle of th e Bill. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that he would be perfectly ready to make the statement his Right Hon. Friend called for, when they got into Corn mittee ; but he did not think he could conveniently do so before. Mr. GOULBURN felt himself in some difficulty with respect to the motion of his Hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln, and therefore, if persisted in, would not divide upon it. Colonel SIBTHORP would, after what had fallen from his Right Hon. Friend, withdraw his motion. The House then resolved itself into Committee on the Bill. ~~►_